have not seen any sensical justifications for the exact sum - its vastly over uk thresholds at which point things would be looked at or announced - and doesnt seem to map to anything eu-related either
I mean the reason is someone owns shares in them and/or owns them outright.
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
I mean, Pestfix has been noted a couple of weeks ago by the press, and is a small family-run business. Its own website says it has no external investors and is run by two brothers...
I mean, Pestfix has been noted a couple of weeks ago by the press, and is a small family-run business. Its own website says it has no external investors and is run by two brothers...
Ha! Bizarrely, a month before being awarded £108 million to provide PPE for the NHS, Pestfix managed to Crowdfund just over £500+ to do exactly the same thing.
There's even a picture of them posting their first delivery, having hit their first goal after getting £135 from seven donors.
I mean the reason is someone owns shares in them and/or owns them outright.
The reason for the sum being so similar across them he means. Like how you might append .61 onto the end of transactions so that you can search through a history and oull them out faster or as a code.
I mean, Pestfix has been noted a couple of weeks ago by the press, and is a small family-run business. Its own website says it has no external investors and is run by two brothers...
Ha! Bizarrely, a month before being awarded £108 million to provide PPE for the NHS, Pestfix managed to Crowdfund just over £500+ to do exactly the same thing.
There's even a picture of them posting their first delivery, having hit their first goal after getting £135 from seven donors.
What the fuck is going on?
Bleeding the country dry, even in a crisis, of course.
Jenrick is apparently on five front pages this morning, and the minister sent out to defend him on the radio ended up saying that if people wanted 'access' to Tory councillors and MPs they should go to Tory fundraisers, which seems honest, at least. I mean it's also a flat statement that if you hand over cash you get to influence policy or receive special treatment, which is entirely corrupt, but it's honest about it.
Is there a certain limit before preapproval of spending, or some sort of oversight takes place?
There are limits before you have to put things out to tender, but these are way, way over - it's around £122,000 based on EU rules.
However there is an exemption for emergancies and cases where there is only one feasible supplier, which is the route they took with these.
I've said it before, but there has to be a reckoning before all of this is over. Traditionally it has been seen as a faux pas to 'go after' the previous government with criminal charges, but that also assumed the previous government were acting in good faith. In Jenrick's case, charges on the grounds of misconduct in public office or similar certainly have to be considered. Calls for his resignation are vastly underselling what ought to happen to somebody who would appear to be abusing his ministerial position for financial gain.
At any rate, there ought to be an actual investigation into the conduct of this government with the potential for actual consequences beyond a cushy retirement to the house of lords. It's not like we're short on actions that ought to be considered, at best, criminally incompetent.
UPDATE (25.06.20): A previous version of this article reported that a 2016 Amnesty International report had found that hundreds of US law enforcement officials had travelled to Israel for training. Our article also implied that this training could have included neck kneeling tactics. While it is true that US law enforcement officials have travelled to Israel for training, there has been no suggestion that this training involved the tactics referred to in the article. The article has been amended accordingly.
The article was an interview with Maxine Peake, an actress who did a few events with Jeremy Corbyn and is solidly working class leftwing. In it, she said that the US police who'd killed George Floyd learned the technique from a seminar with the Israeli secret service (not personally, but that's where she says US police picked it up from). The interview also contained a bit where she says:
“You know what, at the end of the day, all I want is the Tories out. I think people will get behind Starmer, won’t they? He’s a more acceptable face of the Labour Party for a lot of people who are not really left wing. But that’s fine. Whatever. As long as the Tories get out, I don’t care anymore."
RLB retweeted it with a "She's a diamond!". Possibly not the wisest move for an article which kinda says your leader is not really leftwing and kinda pins George Floyd's death on Israel. I'm guessing she retweeted it without reading it, as a supportive move for a friend. If so, that was a mistake, but I dunno if she needed to be sacked.
Doing so is a significant move on Starmer's part, as it kicks out a leftwinger and someone seen as an heir to Corbyn's vision. It definitely says they'll throw the book at anyone remotely linked with a possibly anti-semitic remark, I guess. But it also alienates people from the left who were already worried they didn't have enough representation in the shadow cabinet.
Judging purely by Twitter (the definition of an inexact science), the left's reaction ranges from "very unhappy" to Bugs Bunny looking at the camera saying "of course you realise this means war".
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
It seems like a pretty critical and basic ask from Starmer right now that everybody be hyper careful to not even accidentally create an antisemitism discussion, but i agree it sucks hard to sack her and will alienate some people.
Maybe Starmer thinks he has four years to get them back?
have not seen any sensical justifications for the exact sum - its vastly over uk thresholds at which point things would be looked at or announced - and doesnt seem to map to anything eu-related either
Maybe Cummings is a Buddhist?
Doubtful, but thank you because I *knew* that number was familiar and was wracking my brain trying to figure out why.
A longer explanation from RLB in this thread, which sort of makes it sound like they ummed and ahhed a bit over what they wanted her to do to back off the retweet, then she said no when they asked her to take it down entirely, which is what made Starmer sack her. I dunno. It almost doesn't matter. The left of the party see it as an attack, and those who saw her as an heir of Corbyn's failures see it as a victory, so the actual reason is unimportant.
I assure you that 60% of the US is not wearing masks out in public. At least not in my neck of the woods. Maybe 30%, maybe.
Remember that its the case that the more likely you are to wear a mask reliably, the less likely you are to go out. If you don't give a monkeys, you are probably at bars and restaurants unmasked, if you do, you are probably in and out of the grocery store once a week at 7 am or something.
Your experience of the public is overwhelimingly weighted towards those who behave worse. Of course, the virus has the exact same experience!
I mean I think it's insane to refuse to take down that tweet. The antisemitism issue is real.
She says she didn't want to take it down without some further clarification accompanying it, and I'm not completely clear about what that would mean.
It's a weird hill to die on, though. I still think she didn't actually read the damn thing before she retweeted it, which is an error of judgement in and of itself.
The article contained a specific claim about the neck-kneeling tactic, which may or may not be true but it certainly isn't something a politician should retweet without knowing for certain that it is, especially when the party they belong to is trying to rebuild fences with the Jewish community. I mean, it isn't something the actress should be saying without knowing for bloody sure, but hey ho.
Am I missing something? US police forces have absolutely received training from israeli agencies.
But were they specifically trained to kneel on necks so suspects can't breathe?
I dont think you can draw such a clear line like that. Militarized police trained with little regard for civil rights flows directly into things like what got George killed even if its not literally what theyre trained to do.
To say it rises to the level of anti semitism on that basis is a pretty big ask I think.
+2
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Am I missing something? US police forces have absolutely received training from israeli agencies.
That seems to be the point; all good lies have their basis in truth.
The conspiracy is that the police forces learnt the kneeling technique specifically from the Israelis (and then used it on Floyd)... which is a lot more focused and locates blame in a place I am very uncertain it should be in.
While I'm sure Peake didn't mention it specifically to have a go at Israel, given the REALLY BIG DEAL OVER ANTI-ANTISEMITISM that Labour has had to deal with, you'd think RBL would have at least had a quick ponder about it...
This is what she said, “The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.”
Starmer has looked at that and doesn't think it passes the smell test. Labour is still under investigation for antisemitism, so the leadership is obviously trying to draw a line between now and the previous leadership.
Israel doesn't need to be linked with every wrong doing in the world.
Am I missing something? US police forces have absolutely received training from israeli agencies.
But were they specifically trained to kneel on necks so suspects can't breathe?
I dont think you can draw such a clear line like that. Militarized police trained with little regard for civil rights flows directly into things like what got George killed even if its not literally what theyre trained to do.
To say it rises to the level of anti semitism on that basis is a pretty big ask I think.
The line was drawn in the interview. "The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services" was the specific claim. Not "militarised police with little regard for civil rights ..." as a more general point. If Peake had made a general point there probably wouldn't be an issue, but she drew a clear line, and RLB pointed to the article with a big thumbs up.
The anti-semitic aspect to it is, I think, that "oh the Israelis taught them that" brings up a murder whose causes take in racism, the grotesque state of US policing, the Trump administration, decades long unpunished brutality, and a bunch of different stuff and chooses to put Israel at the origin of that death. Now, if Peake's right and that tactic was picked up from such a seminar, and she knows that because she's looked into it, then that's different, but the comment smacks more of something she read somewhere online and thought oh yeah Israel to blame again big surprise in that conspiracy theory way that Labour should be taking extraordinary pains to avoid right now.
I'll repeat my belief that RLB didn't actually read the thing before retweeting it, so I don't think RLB was trying to promote the thing Peake was saying, it was just really dumb to not check the article before pointing people to it.
If nothing else, firing RLB when the EHRC report into antisemetism is due in mid-July means Starmer can already point to changes he's making to the party culture.
Also, politicians need to stay off Twitter. No good comes of it.
Posts
Maybe Cummings is a Buddhist?
Ha! Bizarrely, a month before being awarded £108 million to provide PPE for the NHS, Pestfix managed to Crowdfund just over £500+ to do exactly the same thing.
There's even a picture of them posting their first delivery, having hit their first goal after getting £135 from seven donors.
What the fuck is going on?
The reason for the sum being so similar across them he means. Like how you might append .61 onto the end of transactions so that you can search through a history and oull them out faster or as a code.
Bleeding the country dry, even in a crisis, of course.
Business Insider journalist with the quote.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
There are limits before you have to put things out to tender, but these are way, way over - it's around £122,000 based on EU rules.
However there is an exemption for emergancies and cases where there is only one feasible supplier, which is the route they took with these.
At any rate, there ought to be an actual investigation into the conduct of this government with the potential for actual consequences beyond a cushy retirement to the house of lords. It's not like we're short on actions that ought to be considered, at best, criminally incompetent.
Article now includes the following retraction:
RLB retweeted it with a "She's a diamond!". Possibly not the wisest move for an article which kinda says your leader is not really leftwing and kinda pins George Floyd's death on Israel. I'm guessing she retweeted it without reading it, as a supportive move for a friend. If so, that was a mistake, but I dunno if she needed to be sacked.
Doing so is a significant move on Starmer's part, as it kicks out a leftwinger and someone seen as an heir to Corbyn's vision. It definitely says they'll throw the book at anyone remotely linked with a possibly anti-semitic remark, I guess. But it also alienates people from the left who were already worried they didn't have enough representation in the shadow cabinet.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Maybe Starmer thinks he has four years to get them back?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Doubtful, but thank you because I *knew* that number was familiar and was wracking my brain trying to figure out why.
Infighting! It's what's for dinner.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Remember that its the case that the more likely you are to wear a mask reliably, the less likely you are to go out. If you don't give a monkeys, you are probably at bars and restaurants unmasked, if you do, you are probably in and out of the grocery store once a week at 7 am or something.
Your experience of the public is overwhelimingly weighted towards those who behave worse. Of course, the virus has the exact same experience!
She says she didn't want to take it down without some further clarification accompanying it, and I'm not completely clear about what that would mean.
It's a weird hill to die on, though. I still think she didn't actually read the damn thing before she retweeted it, which is an error of judgement in and of itself.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
But were they specifically trained to kneel on necks so suspects can't breathe?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I dont think you can draw such a clear line like that. Militarized police trained with little regard for civil rights flows directly into things like what got George killed even if its not literally what theyre trained to do.
To say it rises to the level of anti semitism on that basis is a pretty big ask I think.
The conspiracy is that the police forces learnt the kneeling technique specifically from the Israelis (and then used it on Floyd)... which is a lot more focused and locates blame in a place I am very uncertain it should be in.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
Starmer has looked at that and doesn't think it passes the smell test. Labour is still under investigation for antisemitism, so the leadership is obviously trying to draw a line between now and the previous leadership.
Israel doesn't need to be linked with every wrong doing in the world.
The line was drawn in the interview. "The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services" was the specific claim. Not "militarised police with little regard for civil rights ..." as a more general point. If Peake had made a general point there probably wouldn't be an issue, but she drew a clear line, and RLB pointed to the article with a big thumbs up.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I'll repeat my belief that RLB didn't actually read the thing before retweeting it, so I don't think RLB was trying to promote the thing Peake was saying, it was just really dumb to not check the article before pointing people to it.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Also, politicians need to stay off Twitter. No good comes of it.
The weird thing is in her defence of herself, she said the following:
For point 5, like why?
EDIT: As in, why did you need to send out a press release for a deleted tweet?